Skip to main content
8:00 pm
>> i wanted you guys to have a full grasp of how lucky i was. my boss was like you should make a movie about apples and how they get to the oval office and that is what i gave them and everyone was okay with it. so it gives you an example that people were really open-minded but this wasn't the primary thing that i was doing. what i was doing mostly as documenting candidate and president obama backstage moments, his sort of authentic
8:01 pm
self off-camera and in that capacity i was able to be inside the bubble and document a lot of things that people normally don't get to see. before we dive into that i want to show you actually what that actually means. doesn't necessarily mean funny. he was no longer the prime minister of the netherlands so now i had to worry about -- factual inaccuracy. this is from my show which is a weekly wrap-up that details the president's activities that you can still see every friday morning at yeah. actually that was an importunate weeper he decided that all week and i had to be like at some point we will have to -- this one gag is going to get all but that was my job. i got behind the camera and hung out backstage getting these
8:02 pm
moments that normally ran seen and it's important to realize with any type of motion picture technology people want -- it's not anything. in fact there was a fiction film with grover cleveland in 18, whatever that would have been. the mckinley inauguration is on the film and people have wanted to apply film to presidency forever but we just reached a point in time in 2008 when the technology was enough that one person rather than i would say from the 60's onward about three people could actually do this work. and more importantly than that i think it's a personality meeting technology moment. for instance in the 1960 election that talks about the jfk and how -- telegenic he was an hard already been used by several presents beforehand that
8:03 pm
he had this unique temperament and look that really spoke well to television. i think you have a similar thing with the internet and barack obama it and other people have tried to harness the power of the internet to what extent they could but i think there is a reason why say didn't make an music video about howard dean. it wouldn't quite be the same. also at the very heart of it, this is sort of a dangerous proposition. it seems very fun and happy and oh my god its punching easter bunny but when you apply this kind of thing to the presidency nothing other film is subject to the presidential records act so every scrap of everything and every time you swear because you're mad about something it's all in there. so i think at the very heart, that very thing you have to understand is unless everyone from the senior advisers down to the candidates and the president himself were in anyway nervous about this it would have been shut down. the simple fact is the number of questions people ask me like
8:04 pm
that's what they are asking is he the same on and off camera turns out to be the case. this is just to the guy is and i think it's why it's hard to throw him off or you see a lot of this in his campaign and you see a lot of character assassination on both sides and i think you see it not working with with the president and his -- people have a good handle on him and they feel like he is not the nick person and a lot of that has to do with with the fact that we as much material of the president as we can and always did from the campaign all the way through. president bachmann had she been elected would not have created a video graphic position and i am not sure that president romney would have either but i guess we will see. so you know, getting this stuff may be a function of personality and barack obama is perfect for this but actually putting it out was a little trickier. i want to show you something
8:05 pm
that hasn't been seen that much but it's backstage footage from a few days after the announcement starts like in 2007 a february. there is a date on the front of it so embarrassingly enough we can look to see what it was. was that the third or something? i don't know but this is remarkably the same guy with the hair that you see any sort of wonder with what was changed to have people want to release the stuff so let's just take a look. >> there are so many people. this is reggie. reggie played basketball and football for duke. actually tried out for the dallas cowboys. >> and the packers. >> and the packers. he concluded that he was better off in a political career because, although this is a
8:06 pm
contact sport, you don't break bones in politics. so reggie you can say something. >> this has been a great experience in politics, unlike sports, you have a longer career. hugh still have to listen to people yell at you and you still have to try to make everyone is happy as possible. >> he is from iowa and has a similar temperament to ourselves. he is the one that brought me in and i think that is who reggie is referring to when he talks about getting yelled at. he actually keeps the whole demeanor but there is an edge to him. did you guys put this up? >> yeah.
8:07 pm
[laughter] >> that was about 9:00 at night. [laughter] >> you know whining. it's actually a pretty good philosophy. it sums up a lot. you could do worse than just living by that philosophy, no whining. >> give a warm muscatine welcome to our next president, senator barack obama. [applause] [applause] >> and then you have the situation in this footage that people were starting to notice senior advisers all the way down. i remember talking to john dell staccato. he is the d so he was a
8:08 pm
consultant and he was saying what inspired him about this footage was needless stuff we have been shooting but senator obama had reported a birthday message to a staffer just because they weren't able to be on the trail and he wanted to make sure that she would have a happy birthday. i don't know if she did i don't know but after seeing it, this was so cool and authentic a wonderfully get to videos like this incorporating the backstage element into more visual media so the hybrid of this plus the standard commercial ended up being like the austin caucus spot i believe is what it was written as. and we did tons of these because we like liked this so much. >> are we ready now? >> the next president of the united states, barack obama. >> we have got a chance to make history in january 3. be a part of it. make showed to show up to caucus. let's go change the world.
8:09 pm
[applause] nice t-shirt. >> given enough time on camera any person who deals with it, this is a great example of it. you will not be able to resist saying that. you are just programmed to do that. so i think these things are real and they are very endearing and we kept it up through campaign on the internet and tried to maintain that into the white house but that is one thing started to get a little rough because on a campaign we had a lot of resources and technology and things we celebrated but coming to the white house, i went from a staff of six to having a staff of one which is six times less i think. i don't know exactly.
8:10 pm
i was then not able to envision projects because what was happening, look at the first real i was showing you. isaac ululating all these awesome shots of the president punching the easter bunny but i didn't have this 32nd campaign commercial venue to put this material out so i just started sitting on more and more material. but that actually forced me to examine what is it that i am doing and what is useful? that is when i decided there are-somethings you can only tell about a person from footage like this versus the other ways a public official speaks. so let's say a public official has five ways they speak to the public. they can make a speech, they can hold a press conference, they can do an interview or directly to the camera. speaking directly to the camera, right down the hatch. there is the stick way with a
8:11 pm
casual voice in having this extra voice that allows you to say the same thing you said and all those other voices but another time without getting listener fatigue you get in saying one thing's five times the same way, you can say the same thing five different ways then you have a better chance of getting through. at the end of the day fpl is a horrible way to transmit information. i know we all feel like your history teacher let us watch the movies instead of read hooks and it was the best teacher you ever had but you didn't learn enough to pass a real test about that era of history. you probably didn't learn more about 1492 than the year krista mir -- christopher columbus landed. but you do, it's really hard to convey information. you try to convey feeling so you have all these different voices and i thought maybe there's a way to synthesize all those places together and that was ended up being a weekly backlog of things that would try to take
8:12 pm
normal events, normal speeches and things being captured already and then leave these things through that. it was very successful in that it was a way for people to catch up on the news if they had missed it but more portly a way to put things into context. what are the things you can only see from this kind and not from the news? i think one is presidents are not afforded a public voice to show if they are curious people are not generally. i think it's the main thing you can see and backstage footage is what does a president ask about? what is he carry about? what is he curious about? what does he follow up on? i don't know president bush very well. he seems to have a number of wonderful qualities but being curious was not one of them so being able to show this president as being intellectually adventurous and curious is a very important thing and also to show the breadth of his presence.
8:13 pm
being president is not just making it big speech and slapping some on the back. is being able to walk into a room where there is a family grieving over the death of a loved one and then meeting the teacher of the year and saying hi at a professional picnic. everything is different and transitioning with these kinds of emotional intelligence that it takes from an moment like that to another moment from absolute tragedy to absolute triumph is really i think what makes presidents good presidents and that is something, not just obama but i can see it in lots of people and for instance we were talking about george w. bush who was not my favorite president for sure but when i look at through this context and think about the things i thought about his presidency and i feel a little ashamed. i judge that presidency not based on that. they had a lot to do and they were trying to run a country as best they could. i think they could've done a better job but there are things that i thought there was
8:14 pm
laziness here. no is this emotional transition from one to the other and i can definitely see it in the footage now. bush was able to do that very successfully. i was able to show context. for instance on the episode where osama bin laden gets killed within the first three minutes, we went to nasa and we saw the space shuttle and the teacher the year of the year did show up that we. the president awarded the medal of honor to someone living in someone dead so for instance in the episode you see the president ordering a strike to kill osama bin laden and also correspondents in between, talking to veterans who are living in talking to families of people who are dead and he even did a training thing with cadets that week so you can buy putting all those things together yet and and a much more complete idea of what a presidency is
8:15 pm
like and i think that's useful for people and they think they like it. they are entertained and informed.. that being said and there was a lot of pushback from the press, access. for what is the story without? i think that those concerns would be well-founded if people were watching my footage and absolute bathroom which they shouldn't be. there is the press and there is also my footage and both of them were well together because of the things i context. who covers the press? oftentimes most interesting shot in the oval office when the press pool comes in, it's big but it's not that big so when 30 press guys come in to get a little crowded in there. i am the only one who can go back and shoot the whole scene, the press guys and what they are doing so even as people hunger more for processes and we all love shows about specialized things, i think this has come along in the final lesson i
8:16 pm
learned it is the most important is that you have to produce material regularly not just when the material suggests itself to be done. this is important for government work because if you all of a sudden just bring information on people it doesn't seem right and i have a very good example of that. a special on the gulf coast oil spill and i was in mississippi and that is where noaa has their headquarters and we were looking at all the efforts they were doing with this bill and then i met the fish sniffer. the fishnet for is the guy whose job it is to put this thing on its head and smell if the fish has oil in a perk of the fish sniffer is 1000 times more accurate than the machine that does a chemically. it's amazing. we have a fish and a friend it's fantastic. i'm sure they had one train before him but i wasn't going to put that in the movie.
8:17 pm
oh guess what don't worry about the oil spill, we have a fishnet for. we can't spring that on people. we have a guy that does that in going to be a problem. no one is going to. so if no ahead of regular program called the awesome stuff we do by noaa and one was about the fish sniffer then someone could reference that and be like the fishnet for that is a guy and he is a nice man. that you can't bring the fish and. and so for me that was hugely important lesson. and then the final lesson i learned i think is when you are doing filmmaking like this you have to stop being a filmmaker because being a filmmaker is to want one more shot and to always want to be in the room and be inside the door. this is not a job like that. i had a rule, just relax and
8:18 pm
don't die then. be colmes and as i kind of started to do that i also realized this fly on the wall thing really was not working. i was pretending i wasn't there, and yet i was with the hair and the camera. so i really just started to try to be my authentic self, hangout and be part of the team and feel like you were working with people so it became less a process of documenting the end the fly in the ball than the bubble and more you are part of the team that is working to do things and working to communicate those things effectively. it was a great honor and great privilege and now i am going to show you in the book there is a great picture of the president, the tall fellow and eyes looking at a computer screen and i say this is the only time the president ever asked me if i would show him that movie the movie and the reason he asked was because he heard this movie
8:19 pm
had been rejected from the white house web site. he also heard that it was quote unquote -- and wanted to know why. oh yeah, that's the one and this was a series i did on a trip to to -- and we will figure it out. i'm had made a bunch of them and it was direct to laptop recordings of people explaining their jobs. so this was national trip director marvin nicholson in beijing. >> we are ready. >> i am ready any time. >> hey there. i am the director coming live from the back of a van in china. were just coming back from the great wall of china for the
8:20 pm
president got a two or. we really had a good time. i've got to tell you great is an understatement. that thing is amazing. it goes on forever. i have never been to aisha before so this trip was pretty incredible. not a lot of free time to get out however reggie and i made it out to sample some local cheeseburgers. at at that display the next time you're in tokyo ordered a cheeseburger. you will be pleasantly surprised. yesterday afternoon i got this haircut. i don't speak mandarin but look at that thing, incredible. a little shop next door, i bought a little something in case they haircut did not turn out to good. check this out. is a panda had. it doesn't get better than that. thanks for checking out i we'll see you next time. >> it can't say exactly what when it exploded but i think it
8:21 pm
was some point between a haircut and the panda had. i was told not only was it not on the web site but it would set the american asian cause back and would i mind not releasing it? some of the staff have a lot of concerns about it but i want to let you know the full full breadth so that you have a sliding scale of what is going on. the president punching the easter bunny is okay. the panda hat, that is a little bit north of okay so you have to write that line in between between entertainment politics and documenting you know and craziness and somewhere between the panda hat and the easter bunny lay in my job. oh, god, do you know what i want to show you? marvin was so upset that this one didn't get put up that we tried again. we tried again on the way home. we will let the group vote on this one.
8:22 pm
>> good morning. marvin nicholson white house director coming from elmendorf air force base outside of anchorage alaska. we landed a few minutes ago. air force one is taking on some feel before a last leg home to washington d.c.. it is my second 0500 this thursday. also its minus 1 degrees, freezing. we had the craziest weather on the strip. raina japan and hot in hot and humid in singapore. korea, very nice. i had better get going. thanks for tuning into and i'm signing off from alaska. >> let's go. >> the trip director on that one kenny thompson, he needed us to get on the plane. the plane was ready to leave and marvin was like one more take,
8:23 pm
one more take. we can do this. but no, it was not quite enough. and with that tragedy i would like to open it up to questions if anyone has any. i think you are all supposed to use this microphone so i will get behind the podium. >> did i understand that you said that when she films for the day you could not edit? >> you know, no, i can't decide if i want to keep something from the archives are not. every single thing that was shot every time the camera went on and off again all that has to go to the presidential library through the archives. anything that was release would go through the normal process much like in a still photograph to the press shop of the white house and then it would be released but you were talking about hardships and stuff.
8:24 pm
after a long day seeing a couple of countries, everyone lands and hey we might get to see something because it's only 9:00 in france. actually i'm going to go to my room and start to edit so one more layer between myself. >> why you do it any more? >> i had this popular i wanted to start taking better care of and i was running out of justine. i was not healthy anymore, not able to keep up with the lifestyle and then you now after bin laden knight, call a bin laden night but after after the night bin laden was killed i remember going back to see what i got and you don't feel like that everyday every day in this job is something you have to tackle every day like it's bin laden day. that was when i started reaching out to bring in pope paul who is here with us tonight. the second official white house
8:25 pm
videographer. >> is anyone else doing this job? >> yeah, right in front of you. >> sorry. [laughter] >> we know what happens to all of the white house material ended in siplin that presidential libraries but what about all this stuff in the campaign? >> the campaign stuff, it was a real decision having to be made. it was a server with wheels on it i think in chicago when it had to go someplace and it came to washington and lived at the dnc and then was would have returned to obama for america when they reignited the campaign. is the stuff will maintain? i am not sure. artba files well backed up? i don't think so. i think when the dust settles in this campaign we need to look at the stuff because there is not as you well know a military archival bureaucracy that is extraordinary concerned about this and the first meeting i had at the white house with was with
8:26 pm
the archive people. i managed to blow off with a lot of the meetings. these guys care and they wanted to talk about. it was interesting what you do and don't put in. the photographs were all put in there but they were asking me you put the wrong footage and what about finnish movie and what about in between because the presidential records act is not just preserving photos. the ideas that work done at the behest and on behalf of the president should be able to be examined by people so if i decide to make one edit this is one thing and another edit this is another thing that is part of my working process and technically should be reserved. this is unwieldy as of now and we agreed we would have the final product and the initial footage but actually i made a folder called the project files just in case the year 2000 they have final pros and they can still check it out. we will see what happens. >> i was curious about the editing. it's much easier to say okay
8:27 pm
this photo is good to go in this one not so much. how often did you have to go back when you thought you finished a piece and they said, change this because that takes more time and more work. how did you then develop a policy or a sense of what would fly so you wouldn't have to re-add it? >> as a freelance film guide you live in dread fear of your client and in this case your clients tend to be fairly well-informed people. that being said they were in the tent with me doing my thing quote unquote and by the end of my first year making west wing we were getting the approval process done because it needed to happen very fast based on the script. i would write out, and then the president punches the easter bunny and there would be like question mark. it's fine, go for. there is a trust between me and the communications staff. what you have? is that what happened? it is what happened.
8:28 pm
put it up and it will be okay but there wasn't that kind of back-and-forth about like hey maybe the shot should come in a different order. there was sometimes, that joke is not funny. i know you think it's funny but it's just not funny. they were too long or they were not funny and i was just thinking they were funny. >> speak you said you got to change her style up to a fly on the wall and a part of the whole process in the community. do you see yourself a to continue to apply that are having to go back? >> also i'd may be was adding more agency to myself than i have. just being capable of being a fly on the wall is what it was. in that we were watching him watching the world -- the guy in the back was me when i was holding the camera. i don't know how i keep it still when i'm doing that but i do.
8:29 pm
i'm just very good at forgetting what i am doing and considering the film i have this amazing footage of the president reacting to the news of my wife's pregnancy which i was not expecting to happen. i was just rolling on him and reggie love who has a big mouth sometimes was like hey mr. president, senator obama did you hear arun's wife is pregnant? he said oh my god mazel tov. i actually filmed the whole thing while talking to him and you could hear me like talking extemporaneously but focusing. you kind of develop a rhythm and you never stopped. so yeah. another funny one and we we were at westminster abbey and he was looking at isaac newton -- an impressive guy who did a whole bunch of stuff and he is enumerating it and i realized i was having a conversation with him about it and that is west wing where you can hear this
8:30 pm
person. when people talk i just respond. it's just a natural thing for me. that is why maybe i will never ever be a journalist. this guy knows a lot about movies. i am concerned. he is going to be like in towering inferno 1976. >> so you touch really about the five sort of ways most people get things across in videos. do you think that the backstage sort of you know, sort of casual words they talk about lends itself to give a sense of credibility to the actual footage tracks i see that a lot when i catch myself, people using like a marketing tool now. i am like -- can you talk a little bit about that? you are filming an unguarded
8:31 pm
moment and people really don't -- it sort it's sort of like you know i don't want to save reality tv but you are around that. people forget the cameras actually on. it lends itself to more credible moments as opposed to those direct camera moments. >> its adventures in question and when this type of filmmaking and we are not going to go to heavy into this was first developed in france in the 60's. the first guy shane leroux's. is everybody nodding? director of chronicle of the summer talked about the cameras is the catalyst so there is reality and the camera in the broom makes things happen even more because the camera gets people just up and excited. that turns out not to be the case when the person next to the cameras the president. people are not just up and excited about me with it camera. they are jazzed up about the president people spaz out.
8:32 pm
people are very excited about the president and people spontaneously sing sometimes. this is the truth. so it was never the case that someone was like this is such a more real and rich experience. bearlike barack obama. the flipside of that was when do i not film and a lot of times that also had to do with -- who the president was talking to. we could film him doing whatever, telling someone off in the archive section would be full of it. if you are looking for that, we have got it. the two times there were people in the room who we wanted to make sure would respond to the president with accurate information. other elected officials and congress people. they shouldn't feel like they are under the gun. they might not be used to them may not have the same temper his barack obama does and is not fair to jump at them. i remember feeling bad after
8:33 pm
budget debate -- remember when the government almost shut down? don't worry, it's coming back with the same being every night. they would all get together and talk about whatever and i was getting pretty bored with the whole situation because it was always a tenet night and nothing much doing. i would try to get the best angle and there was no one one in west wing at 10:00 at night. i am in in the roosevelt room trying to get a great shot of speaker of boehner but it wasn't fair to those guys. is kind of startling when they are coming out of around. he doesn't really know who i am and doesn't know exactly what i do and hopping out of cupboards with the camera. for that heels gets it. it is like arun is a scammer but you have to think about how it's impacting other folks because it's kind of a precious thing. this is not set in stone. like i said if there is a president romney i am not sure he will continue the practice and even more so than that it's
8:34 pm
interesting to note that both hope and i have preexisting relationships with the president. we know him and he knows us. when hope was shadowing me i'd call the president over to be like hope is here and he made his usual joke. i talk about you all the time. hope, that is his thing. he just cut me off. she is going to be the videographer and she will do a great job, it's great. i get it. but what happens when someone introduces the videographer. my name is x. let's do this. you want to focus? it would be aware that awkward thing so when that happens than you can say there is really this thing which is the backstage presidential personal videography. [inaudible] >> horrible, horrible. there is a rule when you are making a comment that if the actor does not get the joke you
8:35 pm
don't get to use it in your movie. you can't be just like say it like this, it will be funny. they will never sound on it. if you don't get the joke it will never come across and it's the same way in any kind of politician especially with this side. if they don't see what you are doing and they don't get it and trying to be something else is never going to work out. john kerry who was an impressive guy but he pretends to be the president instead of being himself and his punisher that lie the electorate. i think romney probably has a lot of similar problems. and we will end on a partisan note. i like that. thank you guys so much. this was really fun. [applause]
8:36 pm
spain now joining us on booktv is author diana furchtgott-roth and she has in fact several new books coming out in the summer of 2012, plus this broadside which is a small little book put out by encounter, how obama's gender policies undermine america. first of all ms. furchtgott-roth what is this? >> the book is just a short, easy-to-read liquid for people who don't want to read a whole book and there are many looks on many different subjects ranging from taxes by my friend steve moore of "the wall street journal" to iran by my friend michael ledeen and this one is about gender policies. >> another new book put out by adi, american enterprise institute is "women's figures." >> this book plays to the "playboy" crowd. >> this is in no strata guide to the economic progress of women
8:37 pm
in america and i want to talk about the broadside and i think some of the ideas are the same in both of these and that is the first paragraph which is compared with men and women in 21st century america live five years longer, base unemployment rate that is significantly lower, are afforded substantially larger share of high school diplomas bas and m.a. an mazen face lower rates of incarceration, algolism and drug abuse. in other words contrary to what feminists, lobbyists would have congress belief girls and women are doing very well. >> exactly, yes. it is very true that women i think earned about 58% of them may send bas, fewer in jail. their earnings when compared to men in the same job are about the same and what we need our economic policies that help everyone. we don't need affirmative action or special programs for women. >> when you hear politicians or others say women make on average
8:38 pm
77% of what men make, what is your reaction to that? >> well, it's not true that women in comparable jobs make 77%. if you look at a supermarket cashier, a man and a woman make about the same. the first year associates and law firms make about the same but women on average choose to work fewer hours than men. even when they work full time because you know full time is anything above 35 hours a week. women work about 12% fewer hours. about 25% of women work part-time. many women go in and out of the workforce if they have children and that on average is their average earnings but it doesn't mean they are discriminated against. it doesn't mean that if you take two women into men in the same job they don't earn the same. they do. >> what is the paycheck fairness act and do you think it's
8:39 pm
necessary? >> the paycheck fairness act just was up again for a vote in congress. it failed. is also failed when there is a demographic -- democratic house, and senate. that is because it would require them to report to the government that women they have on their payroll, the men they have on their payroll and how much they paid those groups and that attempted to equalize pay between groups of women in groups of men rather than as both wall holds right now men and women in comparable jobs come in the same job. so what they are trying to do is equal pay for equal work, not equal pay for equal work which is two very different things. there is no reason why groups of women and groups of men in the same sense should be paid the same if as they have radically different jobs. look at exxon for example that is a group of men in oil activities.
8:40 pm
is a 30 and dangerous job. you could not get me to do it. you have to pay people a lot to risk their lives doing that kind of work and exxon also has a group of women in communications jobs, publication. there is no reason these two group should be necessarily paid the same but the paycheck fairness act would be moving towards requiring paying men and women the same even if they are in very different jobs. that is not paycheck fairness. that is communism. >> diana furchtgott-roth europe book "women's figures" an illustrated guide to the economic progress of women in america, was there a time when women were treated unfairly in the work lace? >> oh there certainly was. there were times in the 1950's and 1960's. you can look at the ads and you can see just one salary for a man and another salary for women and the original feminists are to be congratulated on ending that.
8:41 pm
as many of your listeners know there were times when women couldn't even vote. there were times when women when they got pregnant were fired from their jobs and feminists ought to be congratulated for helping move the goalposts and having changed all that, having change the culture in the workplace. but now feminists want to move the goalposts even further and say that there is discrimination if there is no equal outcome. so the discrimination is 50% and the ceos -- but that there is even discrimination with 50% of construction workers and 50% of congress are not women. that is just false because men and women make different choices in the workplace. they make different choices starting in education. you see more young men and majoring in math and science and more young women majoring in actually gender studies, literature. fields that are not going to pay as well as math and science. then when they enter the
8:42 pm
workplace, you see more women going into nonprofit. you see more women working shorter hours and you see more than an investment banks in computer science. there isn't any reason that these two group should be paid the same if they make different choices. a man at a woman in an investment bank though that goldman sachs should be paid the same. they are paid the same and if they are not there are avenues to sue. but that is the big difference. >> what do you think about the white house counsel on women and girls? >> well i think the white house leak has a counsel on men and boys because you can see that young men have lower earnings than young women. if you look at single men and single women in urban areas, then the single men have lower earnings. you can see that there are far higher rates of voice dropping out of high school than girls. boys are getting less education now than girls and so the white
8:43 pm
house wants to have a counsel on women and girls that's fine as long as they have one on men and boys to men. that i think is -- but you know the white house is not talking about extending title ix to math and science. title ix right now on college campuses applies to sports and under title ix colleges have to have the same number of men and women playing college sports in proportion to their enrollment. 55% of their enrollment is women, 55% of the college sports have to go to women. they are talking about extending this to science. so with 55% of campuses are women they would have to have 55% and science which the white house can easily do because title ix applies to all fields of education. this with the disastrous both
8:44 pm
for women in and for americans competitiveness because it would mean that some young men wouldn't be able to major in science and some young women like be pressured to mater and science when they did not want to do that. >> diana furchtgott-roth is a senior contributor editing at real clear columnist for the "washington examiner" in circuit as chief of staff on george w. bush's council of economic advisers and served as chief economist at the labor department from 2003 to 2005. are you supportive of title ix in the world of sports? we just celebrated the anniversary, the 40th anniversary. >> when the courts were discussing title ix one of the methods that colleges could comply with title ix was having as many, fulfilling the desires of the different group. in other words if they were a
8:45 pm
request of women playing sports then that was fine but the way that they are interpreting it is that it has to be proportional. i'm not supportive of title ix with regards to proportionality. it has become a quota system. the fact is that there are more young men that want to play college sports than young women. there've been articles in "the new york times" about how colleges are playing games with the numbers so a woman can be on two teams for example in accounts is to people or young woman can sign up to play hockey when she enters as a freshman and then she decides she is tired of it so she can drop out and still be officially listed on the team. the problem is that young men are losing valuable athletic scholarships because they can can't get on the team because colleges are having to cut back on men's teams, because there aren't enough women who want to play college sports. that is a tragedy because the
8:46 pm
real problem in our society right now is not the advancement of women but the advancement of men especially young low-income minority men who frequently only route to colleges through an athletic scholarship. >> when you hear the political phrase war on women, what is your thought? >> wealthy real war on women right now isn't the war against contraceptives or free contraceptives. that is just another old-fashioned, something that is coming up right now. women who want contraceptives have always been able to get contraception. medicaid provides free contraception for lower income women. the real foreign women is the economic war on women and the fact that another 780,000 women, aged age 16 and over, our unemployed in since january 2000. the fact that women who want jobs can get it because the employment rate is 8.2% and the
8:47 pm
fact that our economy is just growing at 1.9%. the real war and women is that they can't get jobs and their spouses and family members can get jobs and they are suffering with high gas prices, high food prices, higher health insurance premiums and they cannot find a way to advance economically. >> how obama's gender policies undermine america is the name of the broadside by diana furchtgott-roth and she writes, americans live into in two world. one is a world in which they work, study played left cry love and hate and the other world women are more likely than men to succeed. women on average do better in school, better in work and better in life. women trying up in everyday america. the other america is a distortion constructed by radical feminists in washington politicians. these politicians make a -- out of telling women they are defeated.
8:48 pm
>> yes, that is because by saying women after earned the same as men at an pizza lifestyle choice which allows many women to choose a respectable job of lower earnings or perhaps a part-time job and the feminists say that is not sufficient. by doing that, women are earning less than men and making a poor lifestyle choice. just think, the last three supreme court justices who were nominated, the last three women supreme women's supreme court justices who were nominated, just as sotomayor, just as kagan harriet meyer who was george w. bush's white house counsel who later withdrew her nomination, those three don't have any children. they devoted themselves full-time to their careers and that is wonderful for those who want to do it. my boss secretary chao doesn't have children. secretary condoleezza rice does not have children but women who want to have a more flexible lifestyle choice and who want to
8:49 pm
devote less time to their work and more time to their families, that is a valid choice. the goal should not be to make 100% of what men make. the goal should be to have a satisfying career and the wonderful thing about america is there such a great variety of jobs available. part-time jobs and flexible part-time jobs and full-time jobs where you can work 60 to 80 hours a week. women have all these choices and the ones who choose more flexible jobs with lower income should not be put down. they should not be made to feel as though it's a bad choice >> we are at freedomfest in las vegas and we are talking with author diana furchtgott-roth. here's her most recent broadside cow counter, how obama's gender policies undermine america and her most recent book by aei press, "women's figures" an illustrated guide to the economic progress of women in america diana furchtgott-roth
8:50 pm
you have another book coming out. >> the book is called regulating disasters, how green jobs damage america's economy and that is about health the focus on green jobs and alternative energy is imposing costs on america's economy. cause that's come proponents of green jobs are not acknowledging. >> and for the most part you have written a lot about the gender policies in politics and is this a branch out for you to write about green jobs? >> i am have also written -- my books have been in the area of gender but i have written a lot also on energy economics and taxation. i have edited a book called overcoming various entrepreneurship and that was published by roland and littlefield. that was a radical change and something i have been thinking about them writing about for a long for longtime. >> thank you for joining us on
8:51 pm
booktv. >> it was great to be here. thanks so much for having me on.
8:52 pm
>> joining us on booktv is donald luskin, "i am john galt" is the name of this book.
8:53 pm
today's heroic innovators building the world and the villainous parasites destroying it. first of all mr. luskin who is john galt? >> who is john galt? that is the slogan from "atlas shrugged," an amazing book with 55 years ago could have been written yesterday. it perfectly describes our world, our world of declining economies, declining wealth, declining innovation and declining moral standards and the reason why it's so perfectly prophetic is this amazing portrait of human nature and the heroes and the villains are in great conflict in the book are just like the real people who are moving the world for better and for worse today and who is john galt was the question that was asked over and over in that book. we didn't find out until the end who is john galt. it turns out that john galt was a man who was responsible for putting the world into decline and how did he do it? he did it by getting all the smart people to go on strike.
8:54 pm
so that is something that we have not tried in our real-world. the smart people just keep working a matter what. >> is there a john galt today? >> well in the book we identified real people with various characters including galt and the one we attach to galt is the ceo of bp n john allison, the man who built bb&t into the tenth largest bank in the units -- united states and only one of two that didn't need part funding. db2 for americans who live outside of the south may be in unknown bank, the tenth largest bank by assets. this one man did it and he did it by getting every single employee right down to the tellers to read "atlas shrugged" and why is he like john galt? remember john galt went on strike. he took his mind off the market in protest of a corrupt world.
8:55 pm
john allison retired when the federal government came to him in the financial crisis of 2008 and said you don't need the t.a.r.p. money. we are going to force you to take the t.a.r.p. money. we are taking over your bank just like we are taking over the rest of the banks and that is when he walked out and said enough. >> who were some of the villains and first of all and "atlas shrugged" and then how you fit them into your book on john galt? >> a lot of ayn rand fans remember that "atlas shrugged" was all about villains who were people and government, regulators, politicians. that is true. there are a share of those but the worst villains in "atlas shrugged" were actually the corrupt businessman who worked hand-in-hand with corrupt business, corrupted corrupt politicians in an unholy alliance that crashed the economy and the corrupt businessman just about brought
8:56 pm
the whole world economy down in 2008 with angela pizzolo the ceo of countrywide financing. this was the man who essentially invented sub-prime lending. now, another government figure was the superduper financial planner regulator character named wesley mouch. in the book we liken him to congressman barney frank. barney frank was the godfather of fannie mae and freddie mac in the u.s. congress and the two of them must do low in the private sector and frank in the public sector with fannie and freddie were an unholy alliance that allow countrywide in the people who prospered by imitating countrywide to create bonuses where people can never repay them. they eventually sold us to the federal government and how was that made possible? it was made possible by barney frank through for fannie and freddie in the name of all kinds of high-minded altruistic social
8:57 pm
benefits, housing for of a buddy lets put people in big mansions or they can afford to. that was the world of "atlas shrugged" and the world we just barely survived and were still struggling to come out. >> donald luskin what to do for a living? >> i'm an investment advisor brother investment in rieser's? >> what the zimon? citf advice on the market to other investment managers who serve customers hedge fund managers, investment counselors. see in your work, how much government regulation is there in what you do? >> there is very little in what i do because i don't actually handle the money. but my client to do, who collectively manage 10 or $15 trillion, they are still regulated they can even pick up the phone. that is the business i used to be an. i'm now in a four-man firm that gets the influence of $15 trillion without being
8:58 pm
regulated. i made my choice. >> what is it about ayn rand that attracts such a strong reaction? >> well there is a great moral clarity to her point of view. it's an extremely consistent philosophy. is a romantic philosophy that draws many young people because it's a world where when the good guys are in the stories are very passionate, creative, focused and empowered people who know who they are and go out in the world and want to do the things they want to do. in the case of john golf he wanted to shut down the world in order to rebuild it and that was his passion. so young people trying to discover themselves trying to understand what is their role in life, what role models do i have, ayn rand's book, fountainhead and "atlas shrugged" are amazing role models, businesspeople, artists, architects, bankers, lawyers, doctors all of whom follow this philosophy of extreme
8:59 pm
individualism. she was at controversial character. she loved tweaking people. she called at individualism but she also like to liked to call it selfish because she knew it was a word that nobody like. that was a controversial were. she wanted to rub it in your face and if you could accept selfishness, she could if she could talk you into that, individualism would go down really well. >> you use the word talking about ayn rand, a lot of people don't use that word. >> morality is simply the philosophy of determining the difference between right and wrong. there are some people believe the only way you can get rowdy as the religion. rand was an atheist and one of the different answers to your question as to why she's such a polarizing character, she was an atheist and a time in american life when it was not good to be an atheist. if she were alive and writing waday nobody would care but she

Book TV
CSPAN September 29, 2012 8:00pm-9:00pm EDT

Arun Chaudhary Education. (2012) 'First Cameraman Documenting the Obama Presidency in Real Time.' New.

TOPIC FREQUENCY America 13, John Galt 8, Us 7, Obama 7, Reggie 6, Diana Furchtgott-roth 3, Whitehouse 3, Barack Obama 3, Washington 3, George W. Bush 3, Romney 3, Donald Luskin 2, Exxon 2, Noaa 2, John Allison 2, Marvin Nicholson 2, Freddie 2, Osama Bin 2, France 2, China 2
Network CSPAN
Duration 01:00:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 91 (627 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 704
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 9/30/2012